Michael,

> Is childList the same as salesOrderList?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by "the same".

If you are asking is the entity self-referential, then the answer is no.  The 
parent is named "SalesOrder" and the child is "OrderItem". It is a simple 
"to-many" relationship (one sales-order to many order-items).

More info:
I did some more testing and found that the problem is associated with older 
SalesOrders stored in the production server and seems to be creating an 
Exception on

        objectContext.deleteObjects(salesOrder.getOrderItemList())

However, when I create a SalesOrder with new data, I cannot duplicate the 
Exception condition. So perhaps the Exception is somehow associated with the 
older data.

Also, I wrote my own "deleteObjects" method (for debugging purposes) and it 
appears to work fine with the new SalesOrders or seemingly as well the 
ObjectContext version and generated the same Exception with the older data.

The complication with debugging this issue is that the data is on the 
production server and once I attempt a test (even though it claims that it 
failed) the data is actually deleted, so I can't duplicate the test once all 
the data is deleted.

Thanks,
Joe



On Nov 27, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Michael Gentry wrote:

> Is childList the same as salesOrderList?
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Joe Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am getting an odd exception when I attempt to delete a DataObject with a 
>> "to-many" (aka child list).
>> 
>> Here is the pseudo code:
>> 
>> 1. deleteObjects(parent.getChildList())
>> 2. deleteObject(parent)
>> 3. objectContext.commitChanges()
>> 
>> on Exception
>>        objectcontext.rollbackChanges()
>> 
>> 
>> It is very odd but I am getting the following error:
>> 
>> org.apache.cayenne.reflect.PropertyException:
>> [v.3.0B1 Nov 03 2009 19:16:06]
>> Error unsetting to-many DataObject property: salesOrderList
>> 
>> But it is deleting all the associated database rows.
>> 
>> Am I missing a step in the delete procedure?
>> 
>> thanks,
>> Joe
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to